Quotes of the day

posted at 8:45 pm on April 1, 2012 by Allahpundit

“Although it would be folly to predict what the court will conclude, policy experts, insurers, doctors and legislators are now seriously contemplating the repercussions of a complete change in course two years after the nation began to put the law into place…

“The most ambitious provisions would be nearly impossible to salvage, like the requirement that insurers offer coverage even to those with existing medical conditions and the broad expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor. Popular pieces of the legislation might survive in the market, like insuring adult children up to age 26 through their parents’ policies, along with some of the broader changes being made in the health care system in how hospitals and doctors deliver care…

“‘The part I struggle with is how you undo two years worth of implementation,’ said Dr. Glen R. Stream, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. ‘It would leave tremendous uncertainty about what is the direction we’re going in and that uncertainty would obviously affect the patients directly.’”

***

“‘A decision in the challengers’ favor … would lead to probably an array of attacks on different parts of the federal regulatory state because for the first time, you have five justices who are going to take very seriously limits on Congressional power,’ Tom Goldstein, publisher of SCOTUSblog, said at a POLITICO Pro briefing just before last week’s oral arguments.

“‘And so, a lot of things that Congress does that maybe framers of the Constitution would have thought are beyond what the true regulation of interstate commerce is — but which the modern Supreme Court has blessed — would be back on the table,’ Goldstein added…

“‘Is the court going to become a dedicated foe of all manner of social legislation?’ Lazarus asked. ‘If anything amounts to micromanaging rational choices by Congress, it’s this. Everyone acknowledges that it’s well within Congress’s power to regulate the health care market. … For a court to find a way to overturn that, second-guess that choice, I can’t think of a more radical transformation. The court would be basically reneging on the judicial restraint commitment it made in 1937-38 during the Roosevelt era.’”

***

“[I]t seems to me that a succinct answer to Justice Scalia’s question is that the commerce clause would not limit Congress’s ability to regulate broccoli — if members of the House and Senate were crazy enough to pass legislation requiring all of us to eat green vegetables and if that were deemed a rational way to regulate commerce. The same could be said of health clubs…

“Congress has the constitutional power to pass many bills that would strike most people as idiotic, but as a popularly elected assembly, it doesn’t. The Supreme Court itself has said: ‘The principal and basic limit on the federal commerce power is that inherent in all Congressional action — the built-in restraints that our system provides through state participation in federal governmental action. The political process ensures that laws that unduly burden the states will not be promulgated.’ And absurd bills like a broccoli mandate are likely to fail other constitutional tests…

“It seems curious that opponents of the health care law are now looking to the commerce clause, as opposed to the Bill of Rights, as a bulwark of individual liberty.”

***

“If there is a legitimate challenge to the law, my hunch is that it is likely to come over the question of whether the individual mandate is as narrowly drawn as possible to achieve its objective. If regulating the interstate market for health care requires regulating health insurance, and if assuring a healthy insurance market requires solving the problem of free-riders who drive up premiums and taxes for everyone else, then isn’t the solution to require everyone to buy ‘catastrophic’ insurance?

“Roberts asked that question twice, but got no satisfactory answer, either from the solicitor general or any of the other justices. The reason is that there is no good answer. The safer ground for health reform was always to base it, at least initially, on policies that cover major medical events such as a heart attack, a premature birth, or treatment of cancer or a serious chronic condition. Yet such an approach has always been rejected out of hand by liberal Democrats and powerful ‘disease lobbies’ who were intent on finally achieving health-care coverage that was both universal and comprehensive. Now their over-reaching has not only driven up the cost of health reform and made it difficult to win broad political support, but has also put the entire law in constitutional jeopardy.

“In the end, Roberts will see the institutional peril in overturning the most significant piece of domestic legislation in a generation, particularly in the wake of the overtly partisan decisions of Bush v. Gore and the Citizens United. With Kennedy in tow, the chief is likely to articulate a modest new limit on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce that would allow health reform to proceed in some fashion.”

***

“[I]n this case, nobody has said they want to stop government from providing universal access to health care. On the contrary, the plaintiffs have stated that a program like Medicare, in which the government provides citizens with insurance directly, would be clearly constitutional. They’ve also stated that a scheme of compulsory private insurance would be constitutional if somehow the government could make people buy it when they show up at the hospital — suggesting, as Elena Kagan stated, that the only problem with the Affordable Care Act is temporal.

“Most amazing of all: The plaintiffs have conceded that a universal health insurance program would be constitutional if, instead of penalizing people who decline to get insurance, the government enacted a tax and refunded the money to people who had insurance. As Sonia Sotomayor noted, functionally such a scheme would be exactly the same as the Affordable Care Act. Both the plaintiffs and some of the skeptical justices have also indicated that the Affordable Care Act would be constitutional if the law’s architects had simply used the word ‘tax’ to describe the penalty.

“Think about that for a second: If the justices strike down the Affordable Care Act, they would be stopping the federal government from pursuing a perfectly constitutional goal via a perfectly constitutional scheme just because Congress and the President didn’t use perfectly constitutional language to describe it.”

***

“[B]y requiring the private purchase of insurance, the mandate kept the true cost of the health care expansion off the government’s books, and largely out of the Congressional debate. As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon has noted, during the Clinton era the Congressional Budget Office scored an individual mandate as a form of government spending, which pushed the official cost of the Clinton bill into the trillions. But the Obama White House was savvier in its mandate design, and the C.B.O. was more compliant in its scoring. As a result, a bill that might require over $2 trillion in new health care spending — private as well as public — over its first decade was sold with a $900 billion price tag.

“So the mandate was politically brilliant, in a sense. But its brilliance was evanescent. Founding a new entitlement on an insider-friendly sleight-of-hand made the bill much easier to pass. But it’s made it harder to defend thereafter, both in the court of law and the court of public opinion…

“The reality is that the more treatments advanced medicine can offer us (and charge us for), the harder it becomes to guarantee the kind of truly universal, truly comprehensive coverage that liberals have sought for years. The individual mandate conceals these realities, but it doesn’t do away with them. If it’s repealed or swept aside, both left and right might be able to focus on a more plausible goal: not a perfectly universal system, but more modest reforms that would help the hardest-pressed among the uninsured.”

***

“A 2,700-page law is not a ‘law’ by any civilized understanding of the term. Law rests on the principle of equality before it. When a bill is 2,700 pages, there’s no equality: Instead, there’s a hierarchy of privilege micro-regulated by an unelected, unaccountable, unconstrained, unknown, and unnumbered bureaucracy. It’s not just that the legislators who legislate it don’t know what’s in it, nor that the citizens on the receiving end can never hope to understand it, but that even the nation’s most eminent judges acknowledge that it is beyond individual human comprehension. A 2,700-page law is, by definition, an affront to self-government.”

***

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

***


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6

2,700 pages of freedom..
I may have said this before.

Electrongod on April 1, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Second!

vegconservative on April 1, 2012 at 8:49 PM

2,700 pages of freedom..
I may have said this before.

Electrongod on April 1, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Saying it 2700 times would be very impressive./

Bmore on April 1, 2012 at 8:50 PM

The founding of the greatest country EVER was written on about 4 pages.

SouthernGent on April 1, 2012 at 8:53 PM

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-court-activism-20120401,0,6035000.story

Charles Fried, Reagan’s solicitor General, is concerned that Roberts Supreme Court is veering too far towards the right, and bringing on a new era of judicial activism. For real, Mr.Fried ?

galtani on April 1, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Coulter went after all those weenies on the show. Bravo Ann!

wryteacher on April 1, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Saying it 2700 times would be very impressive./

Bmore on April 1, 2012 at 8:50 PM

:)

Electrongod on April 1, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Annie get your guns sitting next to the Commie is funny!

Bmore on April 1, 2012 at 8:54 PM

the overtly partisan decisions of Bush v. Gore and the Citizens United

How is it that decisions with conservative 5-4 majorities are always “overtly partisan decisions”? How come they never describe liberal 5-4 decisions as “overtly partisan”?

aunursa on April 1, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Saying it 2700 times would be very impressive./

Bmore on April 1, 2012 at 8:50 PM

:)

Electrongod on April 1, 2012 at 8:53 PM

2700 times before anyone else can post and I buy you a new house. ; ) On a beautiful lake or anywhere you want. : )

Bmore on April 1, 2012 at 8:56 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-04-01/swing-states-poll/53930684/1

At first brush, it appears Barry/Axelrod/Fluke’s manufactured controversy and alleged Republican War on Women are working. In the swing states, Romney’s support among women dropped by 14 points since Feb, and Barry is leading 51 to 42% on the basis of the swing of the women’s votes.

But if one looks closer: Gallup/USA today oversampled democratic women to republican women 41% to 24% (2 to 1). Party affiliation is about equal in males polled, and within that group, Romney is beating Barry. Talk about a fabricated push poll.

galtani on April 1, 2012 at 8:57 PM

“In the end, Roberts will see the institutional peril in overturning the most significant piece of domestic legislation in a generation, particularly in the wake of the overtly partisan decisions of Bush v. Gore and the Citizens United…”

I get angrier each time I hear this ridiculously stupid “reasoning.”

4Grace on April 1, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Annie seems to dig it, the Commie not as much.

Bmore on April 1, 2012 at 8:58 PM

2700 times before anyone else can post and I buy you a new house. ; ) On a beautiful lake or anywhere you want. : )

Bmore on April 1, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Dang, I am liking that…

But I will just have to stick with the lottery…
:(

Electrongod on April 1, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Greetings!

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:00 PM

“Think about that for a second: If the justices strike down the Affordable Care Act, they would be stopping the federal government from pursuing a perfectly constitutional goal via a perfectly constitutional scheme just because Congress and the President didn’t use perfectly constitutional language to describe it.”

If a running back takes the football 80 yards and crosses the opponents goalline, why can’t it still be ruled a touchdown merely because he gained 10 of the yards while just barely out of bounds?

aunursa on April 1, 2012 at 9:00 PM

George Will, Van-freaking-Jones, and Ann Coulter on CNN?

It’s the apocalypse? We’ve lost when Stephanopalogus gets to set the table.

Arghhh~! They’ll do anything for a paycheck, sit next to VAN JONES?

Who is John Galt on April 1, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Greetings!

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:00 PM

A birthday shout out!!!
To your son.

Electrongod on April 1, 2012 at 9:02 PM

I know I’m gonna puke, but I have to watch….argh!

Who is John Galt on April 1, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Good evening, ALT.

Forgot to tell you that we are practically neighbors. I’m about 90 minutes north of you. :)

4Grace on April 1, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Greetings!

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Greetings, ALT, newly-minted mother of a grown man!

cynccook on April 1, 2012 at 9:04 PM

“It’s not just that the legislators who legislate it don’t know what’s in it, nor that the citizens on the receiving end can never hope to understand it, but that even the nation’s most eminent judges acknowledge that it is beyond individual human comprehension…”

Where were these discussions before Obowmacare was passed…?

“If the media was doing it’s job…

… we wouldn’t have Obowmacare.” – Andrew Breitbart (RIP)

Hey George…

… How’s that “War on Women”?

… And who in the he%% let Van Jones in the room and why wasn’t he introduced as a Communist?

Seven Percent Solution on April 1, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Van Jones’s argument was horrid, so people on UEI insurance and don’t have healthcare are now freeloaders? but when it was being passed discussed debated, they were just poor saps who needed a gov to help them. WoW please please go with that Dems, Mitts riches will be a thing of the past if that’s there strategy. Things are looking up people.

boogaleesnots on April 1, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Oh, and when does the birthday party officially begin, ALT??

4Grace on April 1, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Good evening, ALT.

Forgot to tell you that we are practically neighbors. I’m about 90 minutes north of you. :)

4Grace on April 1, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Very cool!
You in Armadillo-I mean Amarillo?

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:04 PM

“Think about that for a second: If the justices strike down the Affordable Care Act, they would be stopping the federal government from pursuing a perfectly constitutional goal via a perfectly constitutional scheme just because Congress and the President didn’t use perfectly constitutional language to describe it.”

If a running back takes the football 80 yards and crosses the opponents goalline, why can’t it still be ruled a touchdown merely because he gained 10 of the yards while just barely out of bounds?

aunursa on April 1, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Good point but the author is stretching it (lying) when she claims the goal and scheme are perfectly constitutiona.

CW on April 1, 2012 at 9:04 PM

“A 2,700-page law is not a ‘law’ by any civilized understanding of the term. Law rests on the principle of equality before it. When a bill is 2,700 pages, there’s no equality: Instead, there’s a hierarchy of privilege micro-regulated by an unelected, unaccountable, unconstrained, unknown, and unnumbered bureaucracy. It’s not just that the legislators who legislate it don’t know what’s in it, nor that the citizens on the receiving end can never hope to understand it, but that even the nation’s most eminent judges acknowledge that it is beyond individual human comprehension. A 2,700-page law is, by definition, an affront to self-government.”

Steyn. I knew it. :-)

cynccook on April 1, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Very cool!
You in Armadillo-I mean Amarillo?

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:04 PM

15 minutes south of there.

4Grace on April 1, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Greetings!

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Mucho gusto.

SlaveDog on April 1, 2012 at 9:06 PM

5-4 is fine. False assumption that it harms the court. Strike it down!

Bmore on April 1, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Greetings!

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Hey girl…

… Welcome!

Seven Percent Solution on April 1, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Oh, and when does the birthday party officially begin, ALT??

4Grace on April 1, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Since he’s in central Illinois and I’m here…
My ex greeted him with, ‘You’re and adult now-so get out!’ and I was all. ‘congrats on turning 18-btw…adulthood SUCKS!’
Parents of the year we are. LoL

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:07 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Happy Birthday, Spawn!

predator on April 1, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Happy Birthday to the Twerp’s son! Many, many happy returns to the day!

Hope you had Aurelio’s in the old oven!

Don’t forget……Mama ALWAYS knows best : )))))))))

herm2416 on April 1, 2012 at 9:08 PM

The narrative the left is promoting that this is a activist court is false.

Bmore on April 1, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Van Jones, shockingly goes all-in against the “evil republicans”.

Can’t believe I’m watching this, and giving CNN a hit.

Who is John Galt on April 1, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Me-me-me-me-me…Happy birthday to Spawn. Happy birthday to Spawn. Happy birthday to Spa-awn. Happy birthday to you.

4Grace on April 1, 2012 at 9:11 PM

The court would be basically reneging on the judicial restraint commitment it made in 1937-38 during the Roosevelt era.’”

…at the point of a Colt .45 model Court Packer.

Akzed on April 1, 2012 at 9:11 PM

There is one point that seems to be missing in this discussion…

… If Obowmacare is so great, why did Congress exempt themselves and all federal employees, and why has Obowma handed out so many waivers to his signature law?

Seven Percent Solution on April 1, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Very cool!
You in Armadillo-I mean Amarillo?

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:04 PM

15 minutes south of there.

4Grace on April 1, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Amarillo by morning, up from San Antone…

predator on April 1, 2012 at 9:11 PM

The narrative the left is promoting that this is a activist court is false.

Bmore on April 1, 2012 at 9:10 PM

There is something wrong when judges are called activists for actually coming close to upholding the Constitution.

CW on April 1, 2012 at 9:12 PM

herm2416 on April 1, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Lubbock pizza bites!
There’s an Aurelio’s in Macomb. Might stop there when we head back to TX after graduation.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Chuck seems to think its only activist if the decision doesn’t go his way. He as usual is a hack leftist. Good on the interviewer calling him out on it.

Bmore on April 1, 2012 at 9:12 PM

James Stewart argues a point that ignores the existence of a United States Constitution.

What we normal, thinking Americans understand is that there is a constitution, and it was written very much with an eye toward limiting the power of congress to do stupid things and to improperly infringe upon their God-given rights.

Jaibones on April 1, 2012 at 9:14 PM

If the Court strikes the mandate down they’ll have to so limit the scope of their decision to attract a Kennedy that the consequences for other commerce cases simply won’t be affected.

Tom Goldstein is engaging in hysteria here.

Nine year olds will simply not be working in coalmines 80 hours a week.

SteveMG on April 1, 2012 at 9:14 PM

There’s an Aurelio’s in Macomb. Might stop there when we head back to TX after graduation.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Is pizza consumption allowed/covered under Obamacare?

predator on April 1, 2012 at 9:14 PM

The last 10 seconds of that video were the most valuable, thanks to Ann. The root problem with health care is the government getting involved, first through the income tax breaks for employers and now by directly legislating industry directives, and thereby hideously skewing the market. The answer is to get the government out of the way and let the free market work its health-giving magic.

But that’s far too simple for the elites to embrace. After all, it puts them out of power.

paul1149 on April 1, 2012 at 9:15 PM

4Grace on April 1, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Have you ever seen thia?

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:15 PM

the overtly partisan decisions of Bush v. Gore and the Citizens United

How is it that decisions with conservative 5-4 majorities are always “overtly partisan decisions”? How come they never describe liberal 5-4 decisions as “overtly partisan”?

aunursa on April 1, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Based on the two examples you listed, I feel those should just be referred to as “correct” decisions, ESPECIALLY Bush v. Gore… the Florida judges were OUT OF CONTROL and were limited by the power explicitly written in the US Constitution…

If you didn’t like Bush v. Gore, you’re gonna hate what SCOTUS does to Obamacare… neither is the LSM, who would never decry a liberal 5-4 as overtly partisan…

Khun Joe on April 1, 2012 at 9:15 PM

4Grace on April 1, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Have you ever seen thia?

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:15 PM

THIS.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:15 PM

predator on April 1, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Wow, haven’t heard that song in a zillion years.

4Grace on April 1, 2012 at 9:15 PM

2,700 pages of freedom..
I may have said this before.

Electrongod on April 1, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Saying it 2700 times would be very impressive./

Bmore on April 1, 2012 at 8:50 PM

…….and would remind me of Bluegill!

KOOLAID2 on April 1, 2012 at 9:16 PM

“‘Is the court going to become a dedicated foe of all manner of social legislation?’ Lazarus asked. ‘If anything amounts to micromanaging rational choices by Congress, it’s this. Everyone acknowledges that it’s well within Congress’s power to regulate the health care market. … For a court to find a way to overturn that, second-guess that choice, I can’t think of a more radical transformation. The court would be basically reneging on the judicial restraint commitment it made in 1937-38 during the Roosevelt era.’”

Wasn’t it Van Jones that told everyone that this was the “Forth Wave” of progressivism. Teddy Roosevelt was the “First Wave” Everything has a beginning middle and an end, there are all kinds of “eras” through out history. The progressive era peaked with the passing of Obamacare or slightly before. All that’s left of the remnants of the democrat party was turned into a bi coastal party, in November of 2010, when the progressive agenda was overwhelmingly rejected, because of the passing of Obamacare. The American voters killed the progressive agenda. Now we are just arguing about where to bury the bones.

The Roosevelt and Wilson administrations symbolized the first wave of progressivism. The second wave of progressivism occurred as a result …The second wave of progressivism occurred as a result of the Great Depression and the election of
Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s New Deal institutionalized the administrative state that was initiated
by Roosevelt and Wilson and the modern welfare state became a permanent aspect of the federal
government. The third wave of progressivism came with President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s Great
Society, which declared war on poverty and used the force of the federal government to fight poverty and
expand welfare programs. Entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid grew out of the Great
Society and furthered the entitlement legacy that was initiated by the Social Security Act of 1935.

This is the 21st century we can see by looking at socialist democracy in Europe where the welfare state will take us. We don’t have to crash and burn like Greece to figure out that progressivism is a worn out model, and it’s not going to be the desired vehicle we use in the new world order. The cold war model really is melting away, we need something better than old worn out Marxism that no one has ever been able to make work. We are learning, that you can’t be just a little pregnant, and you can’t be just a little socialist.

Dr Evil on April 1, 2012 at 9:16 PM

There is something wrong when judges are called activists for actually coming close to upholding the Constitution.

CW on April 1, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Yep. The left is hedging its bets. They are truly concerned about the bad optics if it fails. They always and only are capable of blaming someone else. I am happy to see them squirm. May the court strike this down on strictly legal terms. Only the pundits and the left are entertaining this narrative for now. If it gets struck down the narrative will evaporate. If it stands it will be the greatest court in the history of the country. So predictable has the left become.

Bmore on April 1, 2012 at 9:17 PM

This Supreme Court is disgraceful and shameless. Nearly 100% of all their decisions breakdown on ideological lines. The law & constitutions is used as an afterthought to support preformed political standing by any means necessary.

An individual is required to file for tax returns if they work and are above the poverty line, how is that different from this?

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 1, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Wow, haven’t heard that song in a zillion years.

4Grace on April 1, 2012 at 9:15 PM

You’re welcome?

predator on April 1, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Happy April 1 day to Mom of Spawn.

That sounds like a Japanese Monster Movie.

Mom of Spawn attacks aliens from the planet Cozmo. hehe

SparkPlug on April 1, 2012 at 9:19 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Happy Birthday, Spawn!

predator on April 1, 2012 at 9:08 PM

….how many girls lined up to spank Spawn?
(:o)

KOOLAID2 on April 1, 2012 at 9:19 PM

…….and would remind me of Bluegill!

KOOLAID2 on April 1, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Without the rotting stench. Electrongod is a great commenter. The gilled one just stinks at it.

Bmore on April 1, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Oh, I see. The legislation itself wasn’t radical. But the repeal of its elements somehow is.

John the Libertarian on April 1, 2012 at 9:20 PM

…….and would remind me of Bluegill!

KOOLAID2 on April 1, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Please let me know if go that far…
:)

Electrongod on April 1, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Both insurers and employers predicted that most insurance companies would continue popular policies that were enacted under the law. Insurers have already factored in the costs of allowing adults under 26 to be covered on their parents’ plans and eliminating co-payments on preventive services, and companies are also unlikely to reimpose lifetime limits on coverage. “It’s more trouble to roll it back,”

Really? Because most companies I work with already had plans to choose from with with zero co-pays for wellness/preventative, unlimited lifetime limits, and the states decided on the dependents age on how long they could be covered over 18.
This only changes “choice”. Off setting premiums by adding a co-pay of $25-$50 for a wellness exam, co-pays for BC, and 5 million on lifetime caps and so on.As for dependent coverage, move to NJ were they can stay on till 30. Been that way for several years. The state age will trump Fed if over 26.

And the Aetna spokesman? just lol.

bazil9 on April 1, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Have you ever seen thia?

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Hahahaaaa. No, I had not seen it. What a hoot. Thanks!

4Grace on April 1, 2012 at 9:20 PM

There’s an Aurelio’s in Macomb. Might stop there when we head back to TX after graduation.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Is pizza consumption allowed/covered under Obamacare?

predator on April 1, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Dunno.
I was my Wally World’s Easter Bunny yesterday-so of course someone got a photo of me in costume. Because the mask was very room-I has to wear it ‘back’ so I could see-which flipped my bunny ears back to I looked ‘earless’. I posted that photo on Spawn’s FB page with this comment: This is **** mom. *** mom wants to wish him a happy 18th birthday. EVERYONE wishes that their mom was as cool as *** mom!
Spawn says that he’s pretending that I didn’t do that. LoL

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:21 PM

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 1, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Squirming I see. How does it feel? 0 is done son. Regardless how the court finds. 0 is done!

Bmore on April 1, 2012 at 9:21 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:21 PM

My proofreading has gone down the tubes!

‘Because the mask was very ROOMY, I had…*
*sigh*

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:23 PM

You’re welcome?

predator on April 1, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Sorry. Thank you, predator! It just took me back–a long way back. My dad used to listen to him all the time. Thanks again and please forgive my bad manners! :)

4Grace on April 1, 2012 at 9:23 PM

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 1, 2012 at 9:17 PM

….ObuttIdon’thaveanybrainsdoI?

KOOLAID2 on April 1, 2012 at 9:23 PM

An individual is required to file for tax returns if they work and are above the poverty line, how is that different from this?

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 1, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Damn your stupid.

bazil9 on April 1, 2012 at 9:24 PM

An individual is required to file for tax returns if they work and are above the poverty line, how is that different from this?

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 1, 2012 at 9:17 PM

[Yawn -- here we go again]

The Constutition allows the government to collect taxes.

The Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to mandate present participation in commerce on the idea that future participation in commerce is inevitable.

The fine for not having health insurance is a penalty, not a tax. (That’s according to President Obama, Congress (by the way that the law was set up) and nearly every court that has considered the issue. In other words, all three branches of government agree that it’s not a tax.)

aunursa on April 1, 2012 at 9:25 PM

I like seeing Ann next to Van Jones, she is 99 times his superior and her looks decieve.

If he gets comfortable coming on this program, she will eventually have the opportunity to get out the verbal knife and twist it.

His opinions and goals need exposure to the light. He is saying in this clip that what the Pelosi Obama law would have preferred was Single Payer insurance. Let’s hear about it. If you lose the mandate on the current law and the rest of the law does not go down, I wouldn’t put it past the Secreatary of Health to try to twist Single Payer out of the removal of the mandate, without congress… it will be so similar, but not requiring Congress to vote on it.

Sorry, tell me how I undo the caps here, they are multiplying…

Fleuries on April 1, 2012 at 9:26 PM

This Supreme Court is disgraceful and shameless.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 1, 2012 at 9:17 PM

SCOTUSderangementsyndrom.

Electrongod on April 1, 2012 at 9:26 PM

“‘The part I struggle with is how you undo two years worth of implementation,’ said Dr. Glen R. Stream, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. ‘It would leave tremendous uncertainty about what is the direction we’re going in and that uncertainty would obviously affect the patients directly.’”

Well, maybe if the fools in congress had actually debated this bill instead of engaging in all sorts of skulduggery to pass it in the dead of night, this wouldn’t be a problem. Frankly, I don’t care if that two years of time spent getting things in place, to “control the people” as one accidentally truthful demorat congressman put it, is wasted, I think of that as a good thing. What uncertainty there bubba? It just means that we can go back to the system that is already working and has been working for a vast majority of US citizens for years.

This is one of those times where the words, “bring it all down baby!” are appropriate and applicable for the continued freedom of the American people.

AZfederalist on April 1, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Is pizza consumption allowed/covered under Obamacare?

predator on April 1, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Michelle does not allow it, Obamacare covers it and waives any co-pay. Must be organic wheat crust with organic feta and broccoli toppings.

bazil9 on April 1, 2012 at 9:26 PM

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 1, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Squirming I see. How does it feel? 0 is done son. Regardless how the court finds. 0 is done!

Bmore on April 1, 2012 at 9:21 PM

And so what? As if that would be the end of the world. I personally have given up on the political system. The only reason I care marginally is the courts. They have abandoned reason. Scalia has no shame. The man is truly a shameless idiosyncratic despot, a political henchman of the right.

So why should I even file for taxes, I don’t particularly like that relationship I have with the federal government, if this affordable care act is so fundamentally different then we aught to examine why we are required to file for tax returns again.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 1, 2012 at 9:28 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Happy Birthday, Spawn!

predator on April 1, 2012 at 9:08 PM

….how many girls lined up to spank Spawn?
(:o)

KOOLAID2 on April 1, 2012 at 9:19 PM

I spanked him virtually-and following tradition I lost count 5 times or so and had to start from the beginning each time.
His dad took care of the non-virtual ones.
Btw: His dad just emailed me a photo titled: What 18 year old guys do on their birthdays. Uber-Dorkboy is…reading a newspaper.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Sorry. Thank you, predator! It just took me back–a long way back. My dad used to listen to him all the time. Thanks again and please forgive my bad manners! :)

4Grace on April 1, 2012 at 9:23 PM

LOLZ! No apology necessary. Just couldn’t tell if you replied with an eye roll or a smile. Now I know. Cheers.

predator on April 1, 2012 at 9:28 PM

SCOTUSderangementsyndrom.

Electrongod on April 1, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Zing! Good one, and right on the money.

4Grace on April 1, 2012 at 9:28 PM

SSSSPPPPPPPAAAAAAWWWWWWWWNNNN!!!!!!!!!!

That which ALYT brought forth unto the world!

Are all the funny stories she told us about you true?

You will sooo fit in well here if so.

Eighteen and still can’t buy a beer…bummer.

It won’t be too long and you will only be five hundred, or so, miles from Mexico…I know some places…and some passwords…just let me know, if ya’ wanna’ go*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
* I know, they changed the words some…but live is the only way to go baby, live…

cozmo on April 1, 2012 at 9:30 PM

predator on April 1, 2012 at 9:28 PM

:)

4Grace on April 1, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Michelle does not allow it, Obamacare covers it and waives any co-pay. Must be organic wheat crust with organic feta and broccoli toppings.

bazil9 on April 1, 2012 at 9:26 PM

It’s the sausage I’m wondering about.

predator on April 1, 2012 at 9:30 PM

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 1, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Oh and one other thing. I have asked you half a dozen times, why are you an apologist for this, the WORST Ever! President. Why are you afraid to answer? Are you intellectually dishonest or a coward? Two questions now plus the original one. Think you can handle that second rate troll?

Bmore on April 1, 2012 at 9:30 PM

different then we aught to examine why we are required to file for tax returns again.

An amendment (the 16th) was added to the constitution authorizing the income tax.

SteveMG on April 1, 2012 at 9:30 PM

This Supreme Court is disgraceful and shameless. Nearly 100% of all their decisions breakdown on ideological lines. The law & constitutions is used as an afterthought to support preformed political standing by any means necessary.

An individual is required to file for tax returns if they work and are above the poverty line, how is that different from this?

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 1, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Okay first there is only one United States Constitution – singular.

As far as Obama goes, he got his signature legislation passed, and now he has the Sword of Damocles hanging over him.

Dr Evil on April 1, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Btw: His dad just emailed me a photo titled: What 18 year old guys do on their birthdays. Uber-Dorkboy is…reading a newspaper.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:28 PM

We used to get an azz beating from our peers in my neighborhood. Right of passage and all that.

predator on April 1, 2012 at 9:32 PM

So why should I even file for taxes, I don’t particularly like that relationship I have with the federal government, if this affordable care act is so fundamentally different then we aught to examine why we are required to file for tax returns again.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 1, 2012 at 9:28 PM

No likey on your relationship???

But a top-down takeover of health insurance would make you likey?
And make you feel good about paying your taxes?

Electrongod on April 1, 2012 at 9:33 PM

It’s the sausage I’m wondering about.

predator on April 1, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Not to worry,they have a faux meat sausage made by Boca. Vegan approved.

bazil9 on April 1, 2012 at 9:33 PM

cozmo on April 1, 2012 at 9:30 PM

He says that booze tastes gross and that he’s never gonna drink.
Good. More Bailey’s for me.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:34 PM

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 1, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Oh and one other thing. I have asked you half a dozen times, why are you an apologist for this, the WORST Ever! President. Why are you afraid to answer? Are you intellectually dishonest or a coward? Two questions now plus the original one. Think you can handle that second rate troll?

Bmore on April 1, 2012 at 9:30 PM

I think not answering those questions are in effect answers. Your question is not based on any logical assessment. What criterion are you using to label Obama the worst President ever? Is it because of the debt? I mean seriously… what is it? Please use the logic side of your brain, breath, keep calm and think logically.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 1, 2012 at 9:34 PM

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 1, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Second rate answer from a second rate troll. Why are you a 0 apologist? Answer the question honestly.

Bmore on April 1, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Is pizza consumption allowed/covered under Obamacare?

predator on April 1, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Michelle does not allow it, Obamacare covers it and waives any co-pay. Must be organic wheat crust with organic feta and broccoli toppings.

bazil9 on April 1, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Surely an exception for her White House chef’s special Lobster Pizza?

slickwillie2001 on April 1, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Good. More Bailey’s for me.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:34 PM

I have some on tap for this evening. Chillin’ in the frig. Yummm

4Grace on April 1, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Lubbock pizza bites!

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:12 PM

I’m thinking Lubbock pizza might be an oxymoron, my friend!

Our son is now 6’4″ and can eat soup off my 5’8″ head!
BUT HE STILL KNOWS WHO IS BOSS!

Hee hee!

herm2416 on April 1, 2012 at 9:37 PM

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 1, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Answer the question. Don’t try to turn the point. Answer the question straight up with out deflection.

Bmore on April 1, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Not to worry,they have a faux meat sausage made by Boca. Vegan approved.

bazil9 on April 1, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Well I guess that would be beneficial to “hog health.” Another plus for O-Care!

predator on April 1, 2012 at 9:38 PM

…we aught to examine why we are required to file for tax returns again.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 1, 2012 at 9:28 PM

What in the world does that mean?

SlaveDog on April 1, 2012 at 9:38 PM

for the first time, you have five justices who are going to take very seriously limits on Congressional power,

Bunk. It wasn’t “Congress” that passed the idiot law, it was Pelosi and some Democrats that unthethically passed it in the dead of night. It was the first legislation of this scope, ever, to not have bipartisan congressional support. And yes, the POWER Of PROGRESSIVES should be severally limited by the courts.

kenny on April 1, 2012 at 9:38 PM

He says that booze tastes gross and that he’s never gonna drink.
Good. More Bailey’s for me.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Send him to meeeeee. I’ll convert him. *evil laugh*

predator on April 1, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Hi Allahpundit;

They all blew the argument on so-called “free-loaders”/”free-riders”.

The Obamacare MANDATE doesn’t order the uninsured buy insurance so that their own healthcare is paid for, but – AS CARVIN BRILLIANTLY ARGUED – the mandate is needed so that the care for all the people who have PRE-EXISTING conditions are paid for.

So it’s not a “personal responsibility” issue as Van Jones was slyly trying to argue.

ALSO: I predict that ROMNEYCARE will be cited by the majority opinion tossing out the entire PPACA as proof that a mandate is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the federal government and a the proper domain of the States.

IOW: Romneycare will ultimately be what demolishes Obamacare, contrary to what Santorum and others have been arguing.

reliapundit on April 1, 2012 at 9:40 PM

He says that booze tastes gross and that he’s never gonna drink.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2012 at 9:34 PM

And you believed it too…bless your heart.

cozmo on April 1, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6